On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 15:32 +0200, Jeremy Nell wrote:
Speaking of which, I am using an i7 PC with 3 gigs of RAM allocated to
Gimp alone, so I'm not sure how to make Gimp's response time any quicker.
What exactly do you mean when you say that you allocated 3 gigs of RAM
to GIMP? Did you
I currently have 6 gigs of DDR3 RAM in my PC. I increased Gimp's
tile-cache size to 3 gigs, and left number of processors at 8 (as well
as everything else).
On 04/02/2011 00:28, Sven Neumann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 15:32 +0200, Jeremy Nell wrote:
Speaking of which, I am using an i7
I've asked this before, with no answers. My aim, as a happy Gimp user,
is not to slate the software, but to improve it. I am not a developer,
but rather a digital artist who uses Gimp extensively.
Working on large canvases, I see that Gimp slows down, where rendering
is concerned. For
On 02/02/2011 03:32 PM, Jeremy Nell wrote:
I've asked this before, with no answers. My aim, as a happy Gimp user,
is not to slate the software, but to improve it. I am not a developer,
but rather a digital artist who uses Gimp extensively.
Working on large canvases, I see that Gimp slows
On 02/02/2011 02:32 PM, Jeremy Nell wrote:
Will the next release of Gimp be a bit quicker?
I'm afraid not; the next release of GIMP, GIMP 2.8, will not be quicker
in this regard.
The release after that, GIMP 3.0, will focus on running on GTK 3.0 and
bringing high bit depths into the picture.
This is good to hear. Rendering speed is important, especially if Gimp
wants to be a viable competitor to the mainstream counterparts, where
man-sized canvasses are concerned.
On 03/02/2011 03:18, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Martin Nordholtsense...@gmail.com
